Cargando…
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 lap...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309 |
_version_ | 1783257205013741568 |
---|---|
author | Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb Javali, Tarun Dilip Nagaraj, Harohalli K. Prakash Babu, S. M. L. Nayak, Arvind |
author_facet | Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb Javali, Tarun Dilip Nagaraj, Harohalli K. Prakash Babu, S. M. L. Nayak, Arvind |
author_sort | Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed in our institution. All donors were evaluated with preoperative three-dimensional spiral computed tomography (CT) angiography Thirteen (5.35%) donors had a left renal vein anomaly. A retrospective analysis was performed to collect donor and recipient demographics and perioperative data. RESULTS: Four donors had a type I retroaortic vein, seven had type II retroaortic vein and a circumaortic vein was seen in three donors. The mean operative time was 114±11 minutes and mean warm ischemia time was 202±12 seconds. The mean blood loss was 52.7±18.4mL and no donor required blood transfusion. Mean recipient creatinine at the time of discharge was 1.15±0.18mg/dL, and creatinine at six months and one year follow-up was 1.12±0.13mg/dL and 1.2±0.14mg/dL, respectively. There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, donor hospital stay or recipient creatinine at 6 months follow-up, following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with or without left renal vein anomalies. CONCLUSION: Preoperative delineation of venous anatomy using CT angiography is as important as arterial anatomy. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and feasible in patients with retroaortic or circumaortic renal vein with good recipient outcome. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5557443 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55574432017-08-30 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb Javali, Tarun Dilip Nagaraj, Harohalli K. Prakash Babu, S. M. L. Nayak, Arvind Int Braz J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed in our institution. All donors were evaluated with preoperative three-dimensional spiral computed tomography (CT) angiography Thirteen (5.35%) donors had a left renal vein anomaly. A retrospective analysis was performed to collect donor and recipient demographics and perioperative data. RESULTS: Four donors had a type I retroaortic vein, seven had type II retroaortic vein and a circumaortic vein was seen in three donors. The mean operative time was 114±11 minutes and mean warm ischemia time was 202±12 seconds. The mean blood loss was 52.7±18.4mL and no donor required blood transfusion. Mean recipient creatinine at the time of discharge was 1.15±0.18mg/dL, and creatinine at six months and one year follow-up was 1.12±0.13mg/dL and 1.2±0.14mg/dL, respectively. There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, donor hospital stay or recipient creatinine at 6 months follow-up, following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with or without left renal vein anomalies. CONCLUSION: Preoperative delineation of venous anatomy using CT angiography is as important as arterial anatomy. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and feasible in patients with retroaortic or circumaortic renal vein with good recipient outcome. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5557443/ /pubmed/28379667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb Javali, Tarun Dilip Nagaraj, Harohalli K. Prakash Babu, S. M. L. Nayak, Arvind Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title | Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title_full | Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title_fullStr | Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title_short | Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
title_sort | laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patilavinashbapusaheb laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications AT javalitarundilip laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications AT nagarajharohallik laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications AT prakashbabusml laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications AT nayakarvind laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications |